M/S Ganpati Travels vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Ganpati Travels, and respondent No. 5, M/s Garima Travels, responded to a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated March 7, 2022, floated by the Mining Officer, Balod, for hiring a four-wheel passenger vehicle. The NIT stipulated a one-year experience requirement in providing vehicles to reputed companies/organizations and specified technical criteria including vehicle age, insurance, legal papers, and valid driving licenses. Relaxations were granted to both parties. Ultimately, a work order dated March 31, 2022, was issued in favour of respondent No. 5. The petitioner challenged this award, alleging respondent No. 5's tender was deficient in several respects, including lacking one year of experience and a valid temporary permit at the time of submission, while the relaxation granted to the petitioner was nominal. The writ petition was filed two months after the work order was issued.

Held

The Court held that the contention of respondent No. 5 meeting the qualification criteria could not be doubted, as the experience certificate dated March 14, 2022, was not disputed as being neither genuine nor valid. The Court found that the mere fact that the GST certificate was dated September 15, 2021, did not inevitably lead to the conclusion that the petitioner (sic, respondent No. 5) had not completed one year of existence. Regarding the temporary permit, the Court noted that it was not denied by the petitioner that in an identical situation, a work order was offered to the petitioner despite not having a temporary permit on the date of tender submission. On overall consideration, the Court found no interference with the work order dated March 31, 2022, was warranted. However, the Court observed that relaxations ought not to be granted in a casual manner when stipulations are laid down by State authorities for tender acceptance, and advised the State respondents to bear this in mind for future contracts. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the relaxation granted to respondent No. 5 regarding the mandatory qualification criteria of one year's experience in the transportation business, as stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT), was permissible under law, considering the petitioner's contention that respondent No. 5's experience certificate and GST registration date indicated less than one year of operation? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of the NIT's experience criteria and the validity of supporting documents). 2. Whether the relaxation granted to respondent No. 5 concerning the absence of a valid temporary permit for the vehicle on the date of tender submission was arbitrary and illegal, especially when compared to the petitioner's situation? (Question of law and fact, turning on the interpretation of tender conditions and procedural fairness). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that respondent No. 5's tender was deficient in multiple aspects, including lacking the mandatory one-year experience and a valid temporary permit. They contended that the relaxation granted to respondent No. 5 was excessive compared to the nominal relaxation given to the petitioner, leading to an unfair award. They relied on Clause 10 of Annexure-I of the tender document and a certificate of registration dated September 15, 2021, to demonstrate the lack of experience. They also highlighted the absence of a valid temporary permit. Respondents' arguments: Respondent No. 5 argued that Clause 10 of Annexure-I was misinterpreted and that their business experience was with reputed companies, as evidenced by a submitted certificate. They stated that GST registration was obtained only when turnover reached the threshold. Regarding the temporary permit, they contended that a similar relaxation was granted to the petitioner in the previous year, and respondent No. 5 possessed a valid permit at the time of the order. They also emphasized that respondent No. 5 quoted a significantly lower rate.